WI: Blair's Cabinet spilts over the Iraq War

So on Daily Politics, Jack Straw said that he considered resigning over Blair's plans to go to war with Iraq (he was Foreign Secretary at the time). OTL, only Robin Cook and Clare Short resigned. What if opposition to Blair was greater than in OTL? Is it possible that the government could be defeated in the House of Commons, and Blair could back down on Iraq? Or would he still push forward, albeit with more resolute backbench opposition?
 
So on Daily Politics, Jack Straw said that he considered resigning over Blair's plans to go to war with Iraq (he was Foreign Secretary at the time). OTL, only Robin Cook and Clare Short resigned. What if opposition to Blair was greater than in OTL? Is it possible that the government could be defeated in the House of Commons, and Blair could back down on Iraq? Or would he still push forward, albeit with more resolute backbench opposition?
Well, OTL, the Tory vote was what guaranteed the use of force. Blair would likely continue to push for war- he's still defending it now, despite the evidence.
 

Cook

Banned
What if opposition to Blair was greater than in OTL? Is it possible that the government could be defeated in the House of Commons, and Blair could back down on Iraq? Or would he still push forward, albeit with more resolute backbench opposition?
The resolution was carried 412 to 149 with a quarter of the Labour Party opposing the vote. If half of the party votes against it still passes 372 to 189. The damage to Blair’s leadership however would be enormous, but would the rebels really be prepared to split the party?
 
The resolution was carried 412 to 149 with a quarter of the Labour Party opposing the vote. If half of the party votes against it still passes 372 to 189. The damage to Blair’s leadership however would be enormous, but would the rebels really be prepared to split the party?

What if Conservative unity in support of the war faltered -- maybe Iain Duncan Smith allows his MPs to vote their conscience?
 
What if Conservative unity in support of the war faltered -- maybe Iain Duncan Smith allows his MPs to vote their conscience?

It would still go ahead. The Tories were massively in favour of the invasion, even on an individual basis. Besides, IDS would never have loosened his grip like that - he was desperately calling for party unity all the time when he was in charge, despite the blatent hypocrisy of his doing so (the man rebelled against John Major so often that any calls for party unity and support for the leadership from him were a joke).
 
I've often wondered about this. It would help massively (and therefore hinder Blair) if at least two or more of the following happened.

1. The Conservatives are allowed a free vote (or better yet, can we say Leader of the Opposition Kenneth Clarke anyone)?
2. Claire Short doesn't dither with her resignation - Just goes at the same time as Cook.
3. Some other big hitter joins them too (So Straw, if that's what he was thinking).

Blair might still win, but it would be a hell of a ride for him.
 
What if we have mass resignations from cabinet, plus a leadership challenge (for which 20% of the party would have to support a challenge)?

Resignations:

John Prescott, Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State (OTL had doubts over the legality of the invasion)
Gordon Brown - Chancellor of the Exchequer and Second Lord of the Treasury (OTL believed the Prime Minister was too 'gung ho' over Iraq, according to Tam Dalyell)
Robin Cook, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (OTL resigned)
Jack Straw, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (OTL considered resigning over Iraq)
Patricia Hewitt, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Minister for Women and Equality (OTL raised objections to the Prime Minister about his policy toward Iraq, according to Robin Cook)
David Blunkett, Secretary of State for the Home Department (OTL raised objections to the Prime Minister about his policy toward Iraq, according to Robin Cook)
Clare Short, Secretary of State for International Development (OTL resigned)

Brown would be the obvious candidate for a challenge, though it's a broad spectrum, politically, and the leadership vote won't come in time to stop the vote on the war. Encouraged by these resignations, more Labour MP might vote against war on Iraq. Then there's the spectre of the majority of the party voting for war on Iraq, but the war going ahead thanks to the support of the Tories. We only need 216 Labour MP to vote against the war, and the motion is defeated...I think it's possible but unlikely.
 
Blair wins the vote and the labour party splits on a number of other lines. ? what happens in the 2005 election (there was a 7% swing away from labour anyway). Blair wins any vote of confidence that follows.

Of the revolters Short is a joke and Cook while leadership material has the double disadvantage of being Robin Cock and not getting on with Brown. With Straw in it becomes serious.

However the specific point for Cook was not the war per se but the lack of either a UN resolution authorising use of force or more general support from other EU members and the need for the House to authorise the use of force, which is a novel constitutional position. He then being vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy as he had supported armed intervention in Kosovo and Sierra Leone without any such mandate.

Cook's resignation speech makes it clear to me anyway that what he is seeking was support from other EU members and support from the House.

The charge would then be subcontracting out the UK ability to act to the opinion of the heads of other governments and inventing a principle that had previously not applied to UK prime ministers.
 
Blair wins the vote and the labour party splits on a number of other lines. ?

I don't know if he would win. The parliamentary party is clearly split against him over Iraq, with unpopularity over Iraq at an all time high, and Tony Blair was never popular with the unions (he only barely carried them in 1994). Against a popular anti-war nominally more left-wing Brown...I think he'd lose.
 
I don't know if he would win. The parliamentary party is clearly split against him over Iraq, with unpopularity over Iraq at an all time high, and Tony Blair was never popular with the unions (he only barely carried them in 1994). Against a popular anti-war nominally more left-wing Brown...I think he'd lose.

Blair did very well in the union vote in 1994, even against union man Prescott.
 
Blair wins the vote with all party support, or it never goes to a vote. Thing about Brown is he does not like (in 2003) Cook at all.

IF there is effectively a PLP coup the removing Blair from office over this they end up with a choice of presenting a PM that brought down Blair (who has a 40% approval rating) or the winner in a the following dog fight with Prescott as acting PM while they carry through the vote and having to spend two years with a PM 'nobody voted for' or ' chosen by the Union barons' with Blair and his supporters sniping in the background or going to country right then and there.

That election would not be about the war and all the polling is incorrect as it was influenced by the facts of the war.

Make no mistake there are enough people in the PLP who dislike Brown to make him have to fight for leadership and he is nasty enough to make it a very dirty fight. And since when did a left wing party win an election in the UK?
 
Blair did very well in the union vote in 1994, even against union man Prescott.

Sure, when he was the overwhelming favourite. But he only got 52% of the union vote, compared to 58.2% for the constituencies and 60.5% for the PLP. In a situation where he's not the overwhelming favourite to win against only one other candidate (the nominally more left wing Brown), with Blair struggling to win 50% of the constituencies and PLP, he'll lose heavily with the unions.
 
Top